Longknife
-
Posts
990 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Longknife
-
Yknow I'm not afraid to mention any part of my life and I'll often cite real life experiences as backround to some points.... But I do not understand facebook, tumblr or twitter. Those three just seem incredibly self-centered to me as the goal in common usage (not neccesarily for everyone but typically the case) is to talk about yourself. So yeah while you'll find plenty of normal convos on all three, you also find plenty of people announcing every single thing they do ever.
-
Just for clarity, I was never saying I sense intentional malice, I just meant that there is a level of such irresponsible ignorance that yes, you should scream at a person just as hard as you would were they to commit a "crime" intentionally. Likewise, I found some discussions on the issues with putting dye on animals and found some people swearing there are safe dyes. This still bothered me and I asked myself why, then I got my answer: How many of you have, perhaps for Halloween or something, seen some ridiculous little costume for a cat or dog, bought it thinking it would be hilarious, and sure enough when you got home and put the costume on your dog, you laughed. ...For about two minutes. After that good worthwhile laugh, it became clear the animal hated it, at which point your "Hahahaha" turned into an "awwww" and you wanted to take it off for them. It's the same sort of attitude you see exhibited here by Andy Richter: Andy Richter compulsively pulls the wigs off those puppies every single time they do that skit, and if you'll read the comments you'll see he has a lot of fans just for doing so. What disturbs me about applying dye to a dog is that level of empathy is completely and utterly non-existent. This is a person who, in that very same analogy, basically exhibits an attitude where they do NOT ever realize their dog hates the dorky costume and removes it. This is a person who views their dog as though it were a piece of furniture they are free to decorate however they please; a person who would bother to go through the rather lengthy process of applying the dye and not once realize or think "hey my dog ****ing hates this, I should probably stop." That's what ticks me off the most about this. Maybe some of you have heard that even if you yourself loathe animals, violence against animals is not to be taken lightly because people that act violently towards animals often go on to be violence towards other people. I would be willing to bet the very same applies here: a lack of empathy for an animal can develop into a lack of empathy for other human beings.
-
What she's doing is actually downright illegal in many states, countries and provinces. Assuming she lives in one of those and an animal lover spots this story, it is actually highly possible she could end up fined or end up losing the dog. Assuming she's California though, the only laws there seem to be in regards to ducks, rabbits, chickens and the like. (farm animals)
-
Ignorance is a choice. I cannot fathom a single environment within this world where one could grow up thinking that trying to dye your dog is a good or wise idea. She is truly, truly ****ing special and I actually HOPE she has zero friends in real life, and not out of malice, but because again I cannot fathom a scenario where not a single friend says "hey dumb****, don't dye your dog. Idiot." The only situation where that level of ignorance seems acceptable is if she literally lives on the moon with a mentally challenged mother and/or father and doesn't have enough human contact to learn these things...which in itself doesn't seem plausible because there's no hair dye on the moon. You seem to be missing point, we all should agree it was stupid thing to do But she dyed her dog out of a misplaced sense of affection. She wanted her dog to look like her, she wanted them to be even closer It wasn't malicious so I question the level of abuse you can sincerely level at her ? This is a level of ignorance on par with "omg guys I shot my cat with a paintball gun cuz I wanted to play with it but it turns out shooting your cat with paintball guns can kill it????" Like I said, moments like this validate the "Ignorance is a choice" quote from Ulysses to me, because yes, there is a point where certain degrees of ignorance are downright inexcuseable. This is one of those times.
-
Ignorance is a choice. I cannot fathom a single environment within this world where one could grow up thinking that trying to dye your dog is a good or wise idea. She is truly, truly ****ing special and I actually HOPE she has zero friends in real life, and not out of malice, but because again I cannot fathom a scenario where not a single friend says "hey dumb****, don't dye your dog. Idiot." The only situation where that level of ignorance seems acceptable is if she literally lives on the moon with a mentally challenged mother and/or father and doesn't have enough human contact to learn these things...which in itself doesn't seem plausible because there's no hair dye on the moon.
-
Why the **** would you dye your dog blue? I'm still in shock.
-
It would be overdone if I used Farnsworth saying he doesn't want to live on this planet anymore, so here's a fun alternative to express my anger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0_dgBaNabY
-
So Anita recently took a snippet out of a blogger's promo for a research article suggesting feminism is directly contrary to genetic programming and thus shall fail, and then spun it in a tweet to claim it was a quote from some hate ail she received: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/anita-sarkeesian-plagiarizes-captain.html?m=1 EDIT: couple things...just wanted to make it clear I am more interested in the source article, which as it turns out is not research but rather one woman's take on and experience with feminism during the 70's. Interesting read with interesting people, both the feminists she criticizes and her herself with her incredibly old fashioned ways.
-
Yknow for some reason it just hit me how stupid McIntosh's statement about how violent games should purposefully be unfun to make a statement actually is. I'm sure many of you know Monopoly the Board Game originates as a criticism of private monopolies? YA ABOUT THAT. None of us play Monopoly and think "gee bankrupting other people sure sounds like fun," though by his logic this is exactly what people do. We play it purely for entertainment. Likewise if we're later told it's meant as a criticism, we can see its merit and see the point it was making. Monopoly hooks us with fun and then later says "btw imagine if this were real life, you'd all be homeless while one of you has more cash than you could ever need or actually put to use." And it ****ing works. It gets its point across wonderfully. In that same sense, McIntosh could suggest a book, movie, TV show or the like about violence purposefully be made boring. Pro-tip: no one would watch and critics would say "it's awful and boring." This is the entertainment industry. You hook them with entertainment, then make your profound statements only after they're hooked. Idiot.
-
I'm always puzzled when articles criticize GamerGate for not avoiding the websites in question.....since I thought that was the entire point of GamerGate.
-
Lawl I've seen her before. Nothing more to say, I'm just a youtube addict that clicks EVERYTHING I get in my recommended and I find it funny I'm familiar with her. But yeah she dun like Feminism. Not so much an issue with their ideals but rather with their tactics. (the again, that's feminism's opposition in a nutshell)
-
No... I mean his point was that if SJWs were truly interested in keeping games like Hatred off the market, they never would've covered it in the first place. We've seen evidence of them boycotting and blacklisting certain names and individuals and that's truly effective, but when they cover something and tell us to be outraged, we only get outraged at them. Only an absolute idiot wouldn't recognize this, and the idea they're THAT stupid is ridiculous. They knowingly covered this game, knowing full-well it would lead to the game being promoted. This makes them and their message seem more relevant and justifies their existence. In a nutshell, their interest is in their jobs. Not morality, not in art, but in getting paid tomorrow.
-
It's been updated. http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs Seriously, how do I tweet this guy? I wanna hear his thoughts on Fallout New Vegas. Likewise, this motherf**ker just shut down the entire SJW argument: http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/12/17/southron-swords-part-two
-
http://i.imgur.com/Hi3Sqze.png Dis guy... Yknow I might tweet him and ask about his thoughts on Fallout New Vegas. Someone teach me how to tweet him in a way that he can and will see.
-
David Pakman is a part of their "network," but TYT has basically panned GamerGate entirely and only given it very very brief coverage suggesting it's wrong cuz harassment, whereas affiliates such as Pakman have given it a serious look. This does seem to be a slam against someone they don't like. The difference between the TYT anchor laughing and running out of a room and the other host is apparently she "gets paid more". So I guess its okay to act unprofessional* provided you're not getting paid a lot. Furries as a subculture don't have a large identity penetration into the mainstream AFAIK so I'd imagine the average person probably hasn't heard of them. *If you think having any emotional reaction to a story is unprofessional. That said, I actually think the other anchors may have set her up - one specifically prompting "what are furries" and then the other whispering something to her. Seems a deliberate attempt to make her break up on camera. Used to watch their show regularly, have done less so in recent time (like a year) as much of their content has become more hysterical and clickbait-y. Titles are exaggerated and make issues seem worse than they are only for them to then provide the facts over the course of 5 mins as you realize it was kind of a waste of your time. Cenk still tends to cover good stuff when he's on his own and David Rubin (when he's on; another affiliate who wanted to cover GamerGate but decided to hand it over to Pakman) is good too, but that's about it. It's a very uncharacteristic piece by them, imo. Especially when they actively enjoy a more relaxed show style where they openly mock political opponents all the time. I should also note that Ana (girl on the left) is a feminist, though AGAIN I should note that basically means f*** all since as we've seen feminists seem to hold little to no common ground; she was ranting about how stupid Shirtgate was and how it distracted from real feminist issues, for example. But yeah Ana tends to bring up a lot of stories relevant to feminism.
-
We have hit a point in time where someone cannot laugh at furries without people getting offended serious-facing the issue.
-
I really agree here. There is a movement to make the creative effort about the creator irregardless of the creation. Now I have no interest in Hatred (or most shooters in general) but if the game company wants to make it fine. If the game company is proven to be racist ****, the consumer can decide if they want to patronize them or not. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, illustrating her view of Voltaire's views in The Friends of Voltaire What you guys are recognizing is an ad hominem attack. It's when the person - not their work or their statement - is being criticized. The problem with it is Hitler loved dogs too, so should we all take to the streets and just start killing puppies? It's inobjective and doesn't do anything to accurately address and assess the work at hand. Would I buy a painting from a Neo-Nazi? If I like the painting, sure. Would I buy a book from a Neo-Nazi? If I like the book, sure. Would I buy a video game from a Neo-Nazi? If I like the game, sure. Does any of this mean I support Neo-Nazis or their political ideals? Absolutely not. Pro-tip: If you are republican, you have probably purchased something from a democrat and vice versa. If you consider climate change a real and serious issue, you have purchased something from someone who does not. This does not mean you support their politics and their ideologies, it means you appreciate the service they provided you.
-
And I would think you would have the decency to respond to posts like this before attempting to leap to "easy targets," as is your habit: Bruce? Yet you continue to do so, even though I regularly chastise you for doing so and make a scene out of it. I made the above post fully expected this **** from you. You may be tired of me egging you on about dodging points. Onlookers may consider my methods of constantly harassing you about it to be a **** move on my part. But I couldn't give two ****s. I thoroughly believe that if you TRULY have an interest in moving forward and aren't just some idiot who likes the ego strokes one gets from being proven right - who hasn't yet learned to find value in being proven wrong - then you should be able to handle the difficult questions and address difficult points, not blatantly ignore them. Sorry for not responding earlier, I thought it was such a silly and irrelevant question no one really expected an answer. I'll gladly answer and I don't take your criticism personally at all, I know you mean well I do accept Valves decision, I already said that. But they made the wrong decision because its no longer about the game. Its become something symbolically political...and they shouldn't provide a mechanism for that. But I still have unwavering support for Steam and remain a committed fan But by your very own quote: Why does this only seem to apply when Valve bans the game but not when Valve allows it and Gabe Newell is allegedly apologizing to it's dev team? This is exactly what people have been trying to tell you for AAAAAGES about hypocrisy and about how this is exactly why GamerGate exists: because being told by an authority figure (or someone in power) that they are right and you are wrong is not fun. This is exactly why democracy exists, and much of the tone of SJWs has been "shutup and listen to me" but when tables turn and someone is telling them to shutup and listen, they cry foul. Yes, it is a foul, and that's exactly why no one should be telling anyone what they can and cannot do. The masses, democracy and the free market should determine that, as that's the fairest solution possible. And here's a pro-tip: Hatred has overwhelming support via Greenlight, and GG has always outnumbered anti-GG.
-
Since he says he's "40", the poster himself hasn't experienced at leaest one of the era he's referencing. It'd mean he was born in the 1970s; McCarthyism and the blacklisting of suspected communists was in the mid-1950s and would have been experienced by his parents and/or grandparents. He goes on and mentions freedom from the religious right, which is vague enough to be a reference to the big religon in school/school prayer decisions that were made in the early 60s (Engel v Vitale, 1962 and the Abington School District v Schimpp, 1963) which he wouldn't have been around for or the fights over rap music (like the furor over Ice T's "Cop Killer") or even video games (Jack Thompson's crusade, though, wasn't really "religious") which he would have been around for. Again, my mistake. I quoted him out of context from a reddit thread he made. He went on to say he experienced something similar regarding Conservatives with religion and ideals of the "classic American family household" during the Reagan administration or something. Let me see if I can't just find his thread and link to it, since that's the second time his other posts would've been nice and relevant. Found it. Didn't think I would for a moment before I remembered he got reddit gold for it, made finding it easier: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2pj36c/hatred_back_on_steam_greenlight_how_long_do_you/cmx9yg1 That gives a bit more context from him. He has other posts in that thread too which you can dig up yourself from the thread topic.
-
And I would think you would have the decency to respond to posts like this before attempting to leap to "easy targets," as is your habit: Bruce? Yet you continue to do so, even though I regularly chastise you for doing so and make a scene out of it. I made the above post fully expected this **** from you. You may be tired of me egging you on about dodging points. Onlookers may consider my methods of constantly harassing you about it to be a **** move on my part. But I couldn't give two ****s. I thoroughly believe that if you TRULY have an interest in moving forward and aren't just some idiot who likes the ego strokes one gets from being proven right - who hasn't yet learned to find value in being proven wrong - then you should be able to handle the difficult questions and address difficult points, not blatantly ignore them.
-
Since he says he's "40", the poster himself hasn't experienced at leaest one of the era he's referencing. It'd mean he was born in the 1970s; McCarthyism and the blacklisting of suspected communists was in the mid-1950s and would have been experienced by his parents and/or grandparents. He goes on and mentions freedom from the religious right, which is vague enough to be a reference to the big religon in school/school prayer decisions that were made in the early 60s (Engel v Vitale, 1962 and the Abington School District v Schimpp, 1963) which he wouldn't have been around for or the fights over rap music (like the furor over Ice T's "Cop Killer") or even video games (Jack Thompson's crusade, though, wasn't really "religious") which he would have been around for. Again, my mistake. I quoted him out of context from a reddit thread he made. He went on to say he experienced something similar regarding Conservatives with religion and ideals of the "classic American family household" during the Reagan administration or something. Let me see if I can't just find his thread and link to it, since that's the second time his other posts would've been nice and relevant.
-
We have a user or two from Poland here, yes? I ask because anti-GG is labeling the developers of Hatred as "literally Neo-Nazis," to quote them. Here: http://****novideogames.tumblr.com/post/100204212288/hatred-is-a-genocide-simulator-developed-by I link it because....yknow it's funny, I read the little examples of them being Neo-Nazis and it's like "ONE OF THE FIRST TATTOOS ONE OF THEM EVER CREATED AT HIS OLD JOB WAS A SYMBOL THAT IS SOMETIMES LIKED BY NEO-NAZIS IN THE BALKAN REGION. ANOTHER ONCE ADMITTED TO BEING A FAN OF A BOXING LEAGUE THAT ONCE BANNED A BOXER FOR BEING SUPPORTIVE OF GAY RIGHTS. ARE THESE NOT THE LITERAL SCUM OF THE EARTH AND UNDENIABLE NEO-NAZIS???" I'm at the point where I read it and I'm like "can't tell if actually Neo-Nazis or if these people are exaggerating things." It's quite literally "the Boy who Cried Wolf." Here's a situation where they may be honest to god Neo-Nazis, and I have no idea simply because I've learned SJWs will literally call anyone Nazis and thus I'm skeptical. So yeah do we have anyone from Poland here? Are those groups they reference as hate groups or homophobic or whatever -ACTUALLY- hate groups or things Neo Nazis flock to, or are they grasping at straws there? Either way is irrelevant to me. Even if they were Neo-Nazis, the game doesn't spout Neo-Nazi doctrine so it's irrelevant. It's like you hate Hitler's paintings because they're bad painting, not because a Nazi painted it.
-
He sounds like a fanatic who is exaggerating the intentions of SJW and people who share there concerns. Who is he again? Please explain what part of his post sounded "fanatical." No problem, the word fanatic can have various definitions. In the context of this debate I consider that person a fanatic because he is obviously embellishing and exaggerating the influence that SJW have. He uses words like "tyrant " and how the " left is a danger to the future of the country ". Its scare tactics and I encourage people to ignore this subjective view of the SJ agenda There are real issues in the world we should be concerned with, SJ ideas are not something that will threaten your lifestyle in respects to gaming. Unless you can give me just 3 examples of where SJW initiatives have fundamentally changed your gaming experience I would just ignore his post as propaganda I used the word tyrant not two posts ago, and I find it odd you consider what he's doing an exaggeration when you simply have not experienced the era he's referencing. You're basically claiming a parallel he's drawing is inaccurate and ridiculous when he experienced both events first-hand whereas you have not. Likewise, while I would normally agree a statement like "the left is a danger to this country" is a ridiculous hyperbole, seeing as it's coming from someone who obviously once criticized the right in another decade, I don't see it as hate-filled. Furthermore - and you could not have known this - the very same poster goes on to explain he thinks this transcends left vs. right and is simply an authoritarian issue that all sides can be guilty of. You are basically claiming to understand someone's life experiences better than they themselves do. By all means you could possibly find someone from his age group with opposing views and cite them, but you cannot seek to discredit someone and say that they are exaggerating their claims, especially when you do not even know them.
-
He sounds like a fanatic who is exaggerating the intentions of SJW and people who share there concerns. Who is he again? Please explain what part of his post sounded "fanatical."
-
Random comment on reddit for GG that made me D'AWWWWWW:
